2023 (2) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Venugopal , Member ( Judicial ) : IA No. 166 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023: Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant in IA No. 166 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023. 2. According to the Petitioner / Appellant, it is not a 'Party', to the 'Impugned Order' dated 09.09.2022 in IA No. 910 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 229/7/HDB/2020, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench - I, Hyderabad), and that it came to know about the 'Impugned Order', only on 29.11.2022. 3. It is the stand of the Petitioner / Appellant, to 'modify' the 'List of Stakeholders', and to 'include' the 'Petitioner / Appellant's Claim', in the 'Liquidation Process',....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 'Appellate Tribunal', shall 'condone the delay', not exceeding 15 days, if a sufficient cause is exhibited, on behalf of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', in not preferring the 'Appeal' in time, as required under the I & B Code, 2016. 6. In this connection, 'this Tribunal', pertinently points out that 'Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, provides for 'Pronouncement of Order', which runs as under: "150. Pronouncement of Order.- (1) The Tribunal, after hearing the applicant and respondent, shall make and pronounce an order either at once or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. (2) Every order of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation, to which the appellant had filed a reply stating that the limitation period would begin from the date of the uploading of the order, which was 12 March 2020. The appellant submitted that the suo motu order of this Court dated 23 March 2020, taking retrospective effect from 15 March 2020, made under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the limitation until further orders, which renders the appeal filed on 8 June 2020 within limitation. However it is important to note that this Court had only extended the period of limitation applicable in the proceedings, only in cases where such period had not ended before 15 March 2020. In this case, owing to the specific language of Section 61(1) and 61(2), it is evident that limitation commen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....001) 8 SCC 470." 10. At this stage, this 'Tribunal', aptly points out the 'Order' of this 'Tribunal' dated 02.09.2022 in Valency International Pte. Ltd v. Vasudevan and two Ors. (vide Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 209 of 2022), wherein, it is observed as under: "At this juncture, this 'Tribunal' pertinently points out that Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a 'Hard Taskmaster'. The 'time limit' and the 'procedural wrangle' cannot be allowed to be 'shaked' or 'shackled' with by a 'Litigant'. No doubt, the 'Appellate Tribunal' at the time of dealing with the 'Condone Delay Application' is not required to go into the merits of the case, and in short, merits of the case should not an issue in an Application fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 'Tribunal' [Three Member Bench] dated 12.10.2022 in Exide Industries Limited v. Jitender Kumar Jain (vide Comp. App (AT) (INS.) No. 1169 of 2022, whereby and whereunder at Paragraph 6, it is observed as under: 6. "In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the limitation for filing the Appeal begins when Order was Pronounced. The mere fact that Appellant received free certified copy of the Impugned Order on 27th July, 2022, the period of limitation shall not stop running after passing of the Order / Judgment. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only limited to 15 days under Section 61 (2) proviso. There being delay of more than 15 days, the Delay Condonation Application cannot be allowed. Application is dismi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....up for consideration before us. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan's case, the submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant deserves to be rejected. 32. All the Appeals are dismissed accordingly as barred by time." 13. It cannot be gainsaid, that the 'delay' in question, needs to be explained, from the 'date', the 'time' was 'running out', till the 'date' of 'filing' of an 'Appeal' or an 'Application', as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields Limited, reported in AIR 1962, SC Page 361. 14. The 'Rules of Limitation', prescribe that a 'Remedy', can be 'exercised', only upto a certain point of time and not ....